Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

bennyboy  I have attempted, for decades, to cast my position in ordinary language , which has ultimately proven to be impossible.  I wish I could set forth my position in simple positivist terms, for ordinary positivistically  oriented persons; however, setting-forth a disproof of Judaeo/Christian Deity cannot be done in simple positivist language, rather, destruction/disproof of extant Deity requires employment of the language of  determination as negation, because, the several putative Gods in question failed to realize that determination to action is negation, and, I do realize, it is very difficult to follow, at first glance, language which describes the origin of human action as a wholly negative proceeding. The language of negation which I employ is, in fact, radically simple, just not to or for those who are encountering the language game of human determination to action as negation, for, the very first time... I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to consider my writing...which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a boy's high school historicity;  rather, it is predicated  upon many decades of studying the most difficult writings extant in our world, i.e., that of J.P. Sartre's Being and Nothingness, et. al.  Duane C.

4.  Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct, by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law".
    Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”, while, all  the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of non-existants, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state”, etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever.  For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” (Being and Nothingness, Sartre 435).

I suspect our boy here has learned that in high school, if you put enough big words into enough sentences, your English teacher will just give you an A+ not to have to try to understand you.  But any good argument should have as its goal maximal linguistic simplicity, not maximal annoyance.  I did take the time to read this point, and it at least seems linguistically sound.  (In the OP's defense, anyone willing to voluntarily read Sartre probably considers this kind of language the norm-- ewwww)

That being said, I haven't read it all, because language this dense requires a level of investment that I'm not willing to make on somebody's first post.  I have my own internal consciousnesses to ponder on the basis that they are a predicate for determinative action, and the OP's verbiage is too grandiose to merit anything but defenestration!

(see, I can do it too, and I admit it's kind of fun)

---

One need not ontologically disprove something for which there is no credible evidence.

No, only just when our entire American/World legal system is predicated upon the model of an exhalted high placed jurist passing judgement upon others via an ontologically nonsensical language of law.  Duane C.

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote